> Sorry, I should have been more clear. My original comment was about
> airliners and that's what I was still referring to. I fly the SenecaII
> quite frequently and have indeed never had any problems with its AP.
Ah - ok. I obviously missed you were mentioning airliners. Glad, that
it's working f
> I spent several hours in RL flights measuring the behaviour and timing
> of the CENTURYIII and several days to implement the measured values in
> it's digital counterpart in the SenecaII.
> I am confident that the SenecaII has an autopilot capable handling all
> published procedures including fly
Am 06.07.2011 08:56, schrieb thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi:
> I keep asking in the forum if anyone knows a plane that reliably
> intercepts glideslope when under AP control - so far no one has been able
> to come up with one. If someone here knows a plane, please let me know and
> I give it a try.
>
I spe
> Rest assured, the Concorde has its share of oddities :)
> See the "known problems" part in the ReadmeConcorde-jbsim.txt.
Yes, it sure does. But I guess I mean something slightly different.
I have tried to fly AP-controlled IFR approaches in a number of planes
(since I can do really good-looking
Hi,
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 19:53 +0200, Durk Talsma wrote:
> > Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in the
> > base package of the next release (2.4.0).
> >
> > We currently have
CRJ700-family?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
Hi Torsten et al.,
As mentioned by others, I do believe that this is quite a nice selection. But,
I think that we should consider our original intentions for rotating the
aircraft selection. By changing the selection, we have a nice platform to
showcase some of the recent development and highli
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, wrote:
>
> The AP has some trouble following a VOR radial or intercepting a
> glideslope, but then I don't really know any airliner (with the exception
> of the Concorde) which doesn't have any oddity in the AP.
Rest assured, the Concorde has its share of odditie
On Monday, July 04, 2011 13:16:33 TDO_Brandano - wrote:
> If the scope is to show off the capabilities, I'd really consider the
> IAR-80 too.
>
> Alessandro
>
I agree, the Mig-15b and IAR-80 are really well done and the ASK13 is the best
glider imo.
Adrian
If the scope is to show off the capabilities, I'd really consider the IAR-80
too.
Alessandro
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 12:50:57 +0300
> From: thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi
> To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft selection for 2.4.0
&g
> We currently have
> - 777-200
I have been trying the CRJ700 lately, and I think this might be an option
for an airliner as well - the cockpit has a nice visual quality, it comes
with engine start procedure, the AP seems to be well-tuned and free of
oscillatory behaviour and the night lights in t
Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Should we change this setup?
I'm in favour of leaving the selection as-is - simply for the practical
purpose of saving us from the usual flame war :-)
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
Torsten
> Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in
> the
> base package of the next release (2.4.0).
>
> We currently have
> - 777-200
> - A6M2
> - b1900d
> - bo105
> - c172p
> - CitationX
> - Dragonfly
> - dhc2
> - f-14b
> - Cub
> - SenecaII
> - sopwithCamel
> -
Let's start our traditional discussion about what aircraft should be in the
base package of the next release (2.4.0).
We currently have
- 777-200
- A6M2
- b1900d
- bo105
- c172p
- CitationX
- Dragonfly
- dhc2
- f-14b
- Cub
- SenecaII
- sopwithCamel
- ufo
- ZLT-NT
Should we change this setup?
T
13 matches
Mail list logo
